lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks
    Andrew had a new version that he just submitted to 2.5,
    but it may not backport easily.

    The agreement at OLS was to treat read and write seperately -
    nuke them immediately for one side, and reclaim under mem
    pressure for the other. Half of Andrea's patch, and half of
    Andrew's. Unfortunately I can never remember which was which ;-)
    And I don't think anyone has rolled that together yet ....

    Summary: the code below probably isn't the desired solution.

    M.

    --On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 11:28 AM +0200 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net> wrote:

    > hi
    >
    > the patch below has now been tested out for quite some time.
    >
    > Will it be likely to see this into 2.4.20?
    >
    > roy
    >
    >
    > On Friday 24 May 2002 21:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >> "Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
    >> > >> Sounds like exactly the same problem we were having. There are two
    >> > >> approaches to solving this - Andrea has a patch that tries to free
    >> > >> them under memory pressure, akpm has a patch that hacks them down as
    >> > >> soon as you've fininshed with them (posted to lse-tech mailing list).
    >> > >> Both approaches seemed to work for me, but the performance of the
    >> > >> fixes still has to be established.
    >> > >
    >> > > Where can I find the akpm patch?
    >> >
    >> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lse-tech&m=102083525007877&w=2
    >> >
    >> > > Any plans to merge this into the main kernel, giving a choice
    >> > > (in config or /proc) to enable this?
    >> >
    >> > I don't think Andrew is ready to submit this yet ... before anything
    >> > gets merged back, it'd be very worthwhile testing the relative
    >> > performance of both solutions ... the more testers we have the
    >> > better ;-)
    >>
    >> Cripes no. It's pretty experimental. Andrea spotted a bug, too. Fixed
    >> version is below.
    >>
    >> It's possible that keeping the number of buffers as low as possible
    >> will give improved performance over Andrea's approach because it
    >> leaves more ZONE_NORMAL for other things. It's also possible that
    >> it'll give worse performance because more get_block's need to be
    >> done for file overwriting.
    >>

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:3.211 / U:1.076 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site